Welcome to Debate A Christian!

DAC prides itself as a serious debate sub for challenging, questioning, and understanding Christianity. Anything related to Christianity is up for debate!

STEPS to take before you start contributing:

Step 1: Read The Rules - (Commandments)

Command

Description

Thou Shalt Create Quality Posts

Quality posts should have a 'topic of debate' in which you state your stance/argument inside the OP. Remember to demonstrate your point thoroughly and precisely. Posts that are deemed to be of low quality/low-effort (As defined in Commandment #2), or do not have a 'topic of debate' with your stance in the OP, will be removed.

Thou Shalt Create Quality Comments

When replying to a post or another comment, make sure it is of high quality. High quality constitutes as anything consisting of substantial, informative, well reasoned, properly cited (if relevant), respectful, and well written content. There is no set length to quality comments, but remember to demonstrate your point thoroughly and precisely. Comments that do not attempt debate and/or do not demonstrate high quality practices, are subject to removal.

Thou Shalt Not Insult or Antagonize Other Redditors

We take serious action against those who break this commandment. Any comment or post that directly insults/antagonizes another user will be removed and the perpetrator warned/banned. This includes statements that identify as an 'ad hominem'.

Thou Shalt Honor Thy Pilate Program

Occasionally participants may want to narrow the answer pool to only a specific set of users. A person could specify [Catholic] and ONLY Catholics should reply as a top level comment to the post. All may join the discussion by replying to top posts of the "Pilates", but only the specified group can be the top comment in a comment family. All other top level replies will be removed.

Thou Shalt Ask to Create Meta Posts

A Meta post created without the permission of the mod-team will automatically be removed. Meta posts are allowed, but permission must be granted first.

Thou Shalt Choose Honest/Accurate Flair.

The purpose of flair is to allow more efficient communication in debates. Choosing the wrong flair or flair that is seen as breaking subsequent rules fails to accomplish this goal.

Thou Shalt Request Custom Flair Within Specific Parameters

If you do not see the flair you would like to have listed in the stock flair options, you can request custom flair by messaging the mods, and it will be assigned to you. The following are the criteria for custom flair requests: Limited to two classifications e.g. [Baptist, Ex-Catholic], Must be relevant to religious discussion i.e. signify religious/spiritual belief or lack thereof, and No parody religions.

I recently posted a thread in /r/DebateAnAtheist asking for theist debate tactics that annoy atheists. It got a lot of responses, so I thought I should ask the same question here to hear from the other side.

So, what are some atheist debate tactics and habits that annoy you, and why do they annoy you? Use examples if possible, or paraphrase if you can't.

Note: Any examples given in this thread are not meant to imply that all atheists are guilty of this.

I'll start with an example:

I see a lot of atheists try to overburden their opponents with complex science and philosophy. They throw around fancy sounding philosophical arguments, or scientific discoveries, as if sounding smarter than your opponent is going to convince them of anything.

For example, they say "Sp. K172 is a strain of Flavobacterium that evolved the capability of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture", instead of just "a bacterium evolved to digest nylon".

I don't think the point is to get you to stone adulterers or convince you to eat kosher. It's to point out that your morality and belief systems aren't based on Biblical principles. Instead you try to make the Bible fit with the narrative you've created in your head because it sounds nice.

Well, it's hypocritical and you're lying not only to everyone else when you do this but to yourself as well.

If you have to alter or ignore even a portion of the inspired word of an omnipotent, omniscient entity to make the whole less hateful and disgusting then there's probably something wrong with that entity.

People are not free to interpret the Constitution. Only the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution.

This is bizarre analogy anyway, since you're comparing a coherent, singular legal code to 500 years worth of a culture's entire collected literature, comprising many different genres, theologies opinions and purposes, which are often totally contradictory to each other.

Are you seriously comparing the bible, which is supposedly written and inspired by a perfect, divine, omnipotent deity, to the Constitution, a document written by people, that is bound to change as law and society changes? Really?

No, no, no, no. I think christians sometimes fail to understand what we atheists argue against. It is not the bible. We dont try to show how the bible is fucked up, there would be no contest.

Atheists argue against divine command. That is to say, that things in the bible are deemed moral, not becuase they are inherently moral, but because God gave the word himself.

We interpret the constitution becuase that is how we apply human law. We realize that human are imperfect and we try to have the law mimic our moral code(not really but lets not get complicated.) That is why if our current best estimate interpretation isn't up to today's standards we can change it.

You can't do that with God's law. It doesn't work the same way. You either know what he says or you don't.

The problem comes when you figure out morality for yourself but still praise all the evil in the Bible as a moral ideal because you call yourself a Christian.

You give your sanction to the Bible when you call yourself a Christian, whether you follow it or not.

Additionally, it becomes very hard to oppose more consistent Christians (who believe in the evil you don't) because you will have no principled basis to oppose them, and your hypocrisy will be evident to them.

If that's what people want to do, more power to them. What bugs me is when they don't follow most of the teachings, but use one or two of them to make other peoples' lives miserable (ie: the baker couple who refused to bake a cake for a lesbian couple) and then hide under the bible for why they should be able to do that.

They didn't do it because of the bible, they did it because of their culture surrounding the bible. If they did it because of the bible, we'd also have Christians trying to outlaw pants on girls.

Most Atheists despise hypocricy. We see the fact that you are cherrypicking parts of the bible to follow but ignoring the rest to be HUGE hypocricy and it makes us think you are full of it, philosophically speaking.

I know I have little to no respect for most Christians for this very reason, I know for a fact that I would respect someone who believes in all parts of the bible including the stoning of children but just doesn't do it cause they can't get away with it in today's society than the rest of christians who do the cherrypicking hypocritical thing.

Do I like people like that? Hell no, I think they are scum, but at least I respect their consistancy. They may be evil monsters, but they are HONEST and non hypocritical evil monsters.

You are completely missing the point of that argument... If you agree that it's wrong to stone adulterers, own slaves and murder children for sassing you. Then you realize that the Bible isn't the word of god. That it isn't as moral as it claims to be. You are actually well on your way to becoming an atheist. You just don't realize it yet.

The Bible is the ONLY evidence that Christianity is right. So, if that evidence is wrong, then Christianity must be wrong as well. If the book your entire religion is based upon commands you to do evil, then it's not as good a book as you want to believe.

whenever I point out that I don't feel particularly bound by the laws in the Old Testament, somebody digs out Matthew 5:17

Don't forget. Matt. 5:17 is a direct quote from Jesus' own mouth. Jesus explicitly says you are bound by those laws and will be until the end of time. You can't just ignore that. Your god is literally commanding you to do evil. So, of course, you also realize that's utterly wrong, and have to try and justify it somehow. Jesus couldn't be lying, so you make up some crap about a 'new covenant' (which apparently allows you to disregard anything in the Bible you don't like), even though the Bible says virtually nothing about this covenant. And, most definitely doesn't say you can ignore Jesus' own words.

I mean, we actually agree on this!

And, therein lies the problem. You realize your religion is based on things that aren't true (or are outright evil). Yet, you continue to profess how true and good it is. That's why atheists have a reputation as angry: you people ignore logic. And, it's infuriating arguing with someone who does that.

But, the funny thing is, you trust and respect logic in every other area of your life. Yet, when it comes to religion, the critical thinking goes right out the window.

The fact that the bible has so many inaccuracies, examples of shit morality, etc. shows the bible is in general a very bad holy book. It doesn't mean what is says. If you're going to change everything about you might as well just do a page one rewrite. Without the slavery, and anti-gay bullshit. Without all the nonsense and totally incorrect facts about the universe and how things work. Just "be a good person, help the poor, don't kill, you'll be alright".

If you don't than Christianity and being a Christian don't mean anything. If I'm allowed to pick and choose what I believe in the bible and still be a Christian. Than my agreement with this verse must make me a Christian Right? "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces"

An argument needs to have certain things nailed down. If the interpretation of the Bible isn't made clear, if that interpretation isn't reasonable or justified, argument becomes pointless. It's just debating the merits of one interpretation versus another.

You may as well argue which character in Harry Potter knows the most spells.

Biblical interpretation is tough as there is no internally consistent standard that I've ever seen. Atheists DO frequently miss/ignore legitimate context and other issues but sometimes it seems "the correct interpretation" simply means "that which is most flattering to Christianity" which IMO is equally unfair.

Making assertions such as "Christians believe X and isn't that stupid" when X is not something Christians believe at all or held by a small minority.
Also making completely ridiculous biblical interpretations.

Like the reincarnation theories you floated below. Are those held by a small minority?

asking a question about some specific doctrine, getting an answer and responding well I dont agree with all the things your answer is built on. Ok then debate that, but in asking the question your supposing that that foundation, for the sake of the question, is true.

Using a thinly-veiled "honest question" to draw out the response they are anticipating so they can shoot it down using the argument they read somewhere or thought up in the shower.

One can always see it coming some 3 or 4 exchanges in advance, and boy is it obnoxious. I usually try to change the direction/tone of the discussion to something a little more productive (and less preconceived).

Edit: Since this got such a response, perhaps I should clarify. I find this frustrating because

(1) It's a tactic that frequently doesn't treat me as an individual, which I find disingenuous. Rather than engaging me as an individual, you're suddenly treating me like a flow chart. I simply don't find it to be a respectable form of human interaction. If the purpose of debate is to persuade one's opponent (and I think it ought to be), this is a really ineffective method to doing so, because your audience loses respect.

(2) It most often assumes that I have never given thought to extremely obvious dilemmas that exist within the belief framework that I have thoughtfully devoted much of my life to. This is insulting to me, not as a Christian, but as a thinking individual. It causes me to quickly lose respect for my opponent, who clearly does not esteem me highly enough to believe I have given any amount of thought to my faith.

A good deal of it has to do with one's tone, but it has to do with whether you're having a conversation with an individual or a flowchart. I'm as familiar with the flowchart as you are at this point. I too have followed it to its end, but came up with a different result. Let's jump to talking about that instead.

I recognize that some Christians haven't thought through the very basic implications of their belief system. But assuming that I haven't is very belittling and will cause me to lose respect for you.

I hope you realize a lot of Christian arguments follow a very simple pattern, not unlike the limited number of opening moves in chess. Unless you're just being polite, the goal here is to draw out the argument to the point where something new can be asserted, otherwise it will lead inevitably to a very abrupt "check-mate" as pretty much all the common arguments made by Christians have been debunked conclusively.

1) I find out the person really does believe some easily foreseen contradiction that is quite easy to shoot down. I find it is surprisingly difficult to predict who these people will be, and this to me is what makes the question "honest." I may know an answer (or several answers), as well as a counter for that answer, but I don't know your answer. So I'm genuinely asking; not merely baiting.

2) I find out they have a different way of looking at/addressing it that doesn't fit what I've heard elsewhere, and therefore I potentially learn something.

Either way, I don't see it as unproductive unless we've both heard the same argument before and both refuse to see the fault. In that case, much of the discussion is likely to be unproductive; though there are always exceptions.

Of course, this can be poorly executed: such as where the person asking the question keeps trying to bring it back to the answer they expect regardless of the answer you give. That, I concede, is annoying and unproductive. I too have been the victim of this approach.

I'm guilty of doing that, but I do it to get an inconsistency in the person's thinking. I bait out a response that says one thing and then say "but if you think that, why do you think this other thing too which contradicts that?"

Are you talking about leading you to a contradiction? If that's what you're talking about I do it all the time, and it's very easy to do with Christianity... you lead the Christian down a path that ends in them necessarily making a statement that contradicts one of their other beliefs... usually they get angry, accuse you of "changing the subject" or blame it on biblical "context" (context is the Christian version of the get out of jail free card!).

I disagree that context Is merely a "get out of jail free" card. A lot of atheists I've debated aren't aware of the context of some verses, or don't apply the context to their argument. It's not a way to avoid admitting defeat; at least for me, it's usually just a way of letting them know they're mistaken and their argument can't support itself on that premise any longer. I find it also serves to alleviate at least some of the straw man arguments a lot of atheists come into a debate with.

That being said, it would be nice if Christians could all agree on what contexts go with what verses. Seriously, I've had Leviticus 18:22 explained in at least 3 differant ways.

It's an admonishment not to treat your fellow male Israelites like you would a woman, i.e. sexual property.

It's condemnation of male temple prostitution as practiced by other religions in the area.

It's a law for prohibiting the Levite priests, and only them, from sexual impurity.

There may be more as well, but it just starts to blend after a while. For every single thing one Christian says about anything in the Bible, I can find another Christian that will assert, No, it really means this instead.

It's hard not to end up attacking a strawman according to someone, when the entire pumpkin patch is covered in scarecrows.

I've seen this coming from the other side, and I'm sure I've done it myself. Thanks for pointing this out, I'll try to catch it.

For what it's worth, that may well be an honest question. I may be thinking a few steps in advance, but I've been surprised before by the responses. I don't mind if an exchange starts off formulaic if it can still end up somewhere interesting.

For example: I've had a pastor say that Jesus' message matters far more to him than whether Jesus actually existed, and that he'd likely still follow that message even if he knew for a fact that Jesus didn't exist. I can't lead that guy into a trap -- not because he won't go there, but the trap won't apply to him.

quoting leviticus/deuteronomy in a spiteful, way that is clearly not intended as a genuine part of the debate.

also, when im explaining certain internal aspects of christianity, there are people who reject it as nonsense because they say god doesnt exist/christianity is wrong, when the theology im trying to explain is only relevent on the premise god exists

You have to understand, to us that's debating dishonestly. We don't care about all the theology you are trying to explain if we don't even agree with your Premise (god exists) in the first place.

It's all irrelevant, we don't want to hear it at all until you prove the premise first.

That's why they are getting irritated at you, you are being dishonest with them (in their view) Prove your premise FIRST before even mentioning any of the theology that comes after will get you better results.

The second one I definitely understand - it's very hard to have a religious discussion without some limitation on scope. Atheists should be quite familiar with this approach if they've ever had discussions with fundamentalist creationists - You'll be explaining homologies and there will be a jump to abiogenesis, then morality, then back to some specifics of carbon dating, then we're off to cosmology, but wait! a sharp swing around solipsism first! Oh, and how about some information theory as applied to genetics?

Your example seems to be the atheist equivalent to what I've experienced; to start the discussion in some specific area of theology, then suddenly jump back to "but there's no evidence for God." Shifting scope is one I caught myself doing a time or two early on in my deconversion; and one I personally try to avoid. Thanks for the reminder.

Though, that said, there are times that is appropriate - I've found a few debaters doing the opposite: We start the conversation at "show me the proof" and they try to pull it into familiar areas of their theology.

I too am probably guilty of this myself, I'm not even close to a place where I can claim to be especially intelligent. But it certainly does make discussion hard. I feel often that people stem away from debating and attempting to find truth and go towards proving themselves and their view to be right no matter what. And once again, I certainly would have done this in the past, the temptation to do so as a Christian is certainly apparent

when the theology im trying to explain is only relevent on the premise god exists

I have an Episcopal priest friend that I throw questions at constantly, since the guy's pretty in the know, and can even elaborate on other denominations. Although atheist, I use the premise above to learn more about this aspect of our culture. Similarly, I do the same for Star Wars lore and the like.

It's fun when he's writing an article on something and wants a non-believer's opinion. (I still can't get him to call me a heathen, despite 20+ years of friendship.) I'll do up some research and toss back my take. He'll then link the piece to me.

TL;DR: To understand the other side, we must view it objectively as if from their perspective, even though we don't believe in the same thing.

Right on! I think what morkelebmink said is very true. If you want to debate something then debate the premises. If you want to debate the theology you'll have to assume they're actually true. I respect your intellectual honesty :)

Honestly, I doubt my intellectual honesty. When I get going, I set traps, unintentionally. But I've been working to at least understand the mindset of some of my friends and associates. (My wife gets to hear my bitching, and even gets my brick-sharp intellect directed at her own belief system on occasion when she pushes my buttons.)

To understand that, like I said above, I need to set aside my own beliefs and look at what's presented just like I do with other self-enclosed systems. (Star Wars, D&D, WoW, LoL, etc. Geek card available on request.) I then try to find ways to cause thought and reflection within that system through loopholes and various cognitive problems.

My goal used to be deconversion, as a mirror of my Christian days. Now, I seek to cause questions and reflection. How the person uses that in the long term is up to them.

I really don't like it when atheists misuse the Deuteronomy 21:18-21 argument about stoning your children. It says it's their son, not a child. I especially don't like that they could simply use bears killing kids or some other example, buy they choose that, thinking that they know something.

I don't believe in any gods, but being dishonest helps no one, anywhere in a debate.

im not at all going to pretend that every single aspect of the old testament is acceptable now. i will say in that specific situation it was. In fact even during the roman period it was common and perfectly legal for parents to kill their children, but thats besides the point.

no, im sorry, my issue is moreso when people might quote said verse of Deut 21:18-21 and make some sort of claim that that means that the 4 gospels hold no credibility and should be ignored. i cannot agree with that.

not at all. The morality all throughout both Old testament and New testament still applies, however the various practice that God told the people of Israel to do in order to be set apart from other nations, yeah those dont apply.

Sorry, I was moreso referring to when they're used in a 'below the belt, cheap shot' kind of comment that some would use to 'win' a discussion rather than facilitate one. I have no issue debating the credibility of the OT if its done in a civil manner

In fact even during the roman period it was common and perfectly legal for parents to kill their children, but thats besides the point.

Nope.

It was neither common nor legal for Roman parents to arbitrarily murder their children (except for, perhaps, during the dimmest antiquity, but certainly not during the classical period). That said, as with our current law, some killings were legally justifiable, but also as today, those situations were rare.

The only time that a father had pretty much unfettered discretion over the life and death of his children was immediately after the child's birth.

Actually it was, the eldest male in the household was considered the pater familius and held (at least in theory) the right to the life and death of each member of the household. I'm not going to try and say it occurred often because it didn't, but it was legal up until commodus changed the law

Actually, you prove to have only a superficial understanding of what those rights represented. (You think I can cite a Roman law casebook without knowing what a paterfamilias is? LOL.)

Seriously, just browse the goddam casebook. You'll find many examples preceding the reign of Commodus where children successfully sued their fathers for merely punishing them, and cases where fathers who killed their children were found guilty of criminal behavior.

lemme start out by saying, you most likely know more than me on the subject of roman law/history. what i know, i know only because of a slight interest in roman history.

from what ive previous read and understood under the concept 'ius vitae necisque' a father did have the right over children and his wife as i stated. but certainly i will agree it hardly was used or had an affect, firstly because of the high mortality rate, paternal conflict was minimized. also i would admit that the social norms of the time set limits on when this could be applies: an 'iusta causa' had to be recognized as well as having a consilium of friends called upon. i know that a father was allowed to kill an adulterous daughter, and was also allowed to kill sons if they had plotted to commit treason. (in fact Junius Brutus killed his two sons for that reason, so theres one example).

certainly im not saying it was common, and that it was still happening in Jesus' time in the roman society, but as far as i understand it was a part of roman law. please correct me where im wrong, like i said, it appears you do certainly know more on the topic than i do.

I've tried to correct you where you're wrong and have even provided you a handy reference, and you just keep relying on the same tired fallacies.

"i know that a father was allowed to kill an adulterous daughter."

No. Wrong. Once she's married, authority over a woman passes from father to husband.

A husband may be permitted to legally murder his wife's lover, provided all of the following are met: (a) the husband catches wife and lover in flagrante, (b) inside husband's home, (c) wife's lover is part of a certain unprotected legal status, and (d) husband subsequently divorces wife.

If husband kills wife under those same circumstances, it wasn't treated as if a cold-blooded murder, but it was most definitely a criminal act that would merit a life sentence under hard labor or exile (as usual, depending on husband's status.)

As I said before, a father possessing absolute power of life and death may have been an actual legal right in the dimmest antiquity of Rome (perhaps during the pre-Republic monarchy), but this was most definitely not the case during the classic period.

But I didn't say it should never be brought up or that it should be ignored, I simply said it annoys me when its used as a 'below the belt cheap shot' of sorts. Certainly all aspects of the bible should be brought up in debate. But come on, whether god says eat shellfish or not in Leviticus doesn't impact the historic reliability of the gospels for example

I mean it doesn't make sense in any context, unless you read it in English and don't put any effort into understanding it. There's just no precedent for making the argument that God sent bears to maul innocent children because Elisha felt like it.

God kills children all the time in the OP and orders them killed as well. The OT does not represent a culture that revered children, and it represents vengeance against children as a perfectly valid way to punish their parents.

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

(Psalm 137:9)

That's in addition to all the times God tells the Israelites to slaughter children and "sucking infants." and to stab pregnant women in the stomach. The only reason not to kill a child in battle, according to the Hebrew Bible, is if you want to take her home and rape her.

There's just no precedent for making the argument that God sent bears to maul innocent children because Elisha felt like it.

Ahem. The Bible says God murdered untold numbers of Egyptian children because their unelected hereditary ruler was being intransigent with Moses. Of course, God also created that intransigence by "hardening Pharaohs' heart" prior to the completion of the negotiations.

Prior to that, God sent a flood to killed nearly every living thing, which presumably included innocent children.

Spending way too much time on semantics; the liberal use of scorn, mockery, and other forms of disrespect in debates; and lastly, baiting Christians by asking loaded questions. "If God is good and he commanded his angel to kill 100,000 people in one night, then genocide must be good, right?" No theist is going to agree despite the soundness of your logic, so why bother? Such posts/debates will inevitably devolve into arguments of semantics and subjective definitions. Better off beating your head against a concrete wall.

To a certain extent. Once the semantics become more important than the issue being discussed, or when people are only out to call people on ad hominems and straw men and the like, dialogue breaks down. I guess it all depends on your goal in engaging in these debate subs. To win an argument that, in the end, can't be won by either side? Or to hopefully help theists see a side of things they may not have yet considered?

The thing that annoys me most about atheist/Christian debates is not a particular argument that one side uses, but rather the condition of being a Christian debater.

What I mean is this... There's really only one type of atheist. There's no variation in the belief that you don't hold. But Christians (any religious people, for that matter) come in all shapes and sizes. When a Christian goes to the podium to debate with an atheist, the atheist perceives his opponent as one of millions representative, and the product of a long and rich history of thousands of years of dogma, doctrine, care, and crusade. But that's never the person the atheist is actually debating. Because every Christian debater has his own interpretation of the doctrines, his own view of what it means to be a good person, a good Christian, the nature of evil, the degree to which we should take holy texts literally, etc. etc. No two Christians are alike in all these aspects. And that may be good or that may be bad, but it's definitely bad for the audience.

If the atheist debater should bring up the evils that the bible condones, the Christian will undoubtedly espouse that he does not read the bible the same way: either it doesn't actually condone the evil, or it does but that was just a product of the age and not to be taken literally anymore (note that these are mutually exclusive positions). The Christian almost always has the option of rebutting with "oh, well I certainly don't believe that." In the debate, this is only a minor annoyance, and the atheist can always point out that plenty of other Christians do believe those things.

But this is why I think it is actually a huge problem: the Christians who debate atheists are nothing like the majority of Christians on Earth. They stand up there and debate intelligently with a scientist, and, with their more reasonable and very moderate beliefs, they justify a belief system to which thousands and thousands of not so reasonable and not so moderate believers subscribe.

Basically, you'll never hear a Christian debate an atheist with the arguments that preachers in the rural South use. And you'll never hear such nice, moderate arguments in those churches. One hand washes the other.

There's really only one type of atheist. There's no variation in the belief that you don't hold.

I disagree with this. Just to cite a few examples, there are atheists who believe Jesus never existed as a human being, and those that do. There are atheists who believe that the bible is a history of the Jews, and there are those who believe it was compiled mostly of stories some time around 500BC. There are atheists who believe that the whole bible should be grounds for criticism of Christians, and those who believe that certain portions of it have become invalidated for one reason or another.

Atheists may not necessarily believe in Christ Jesus as Saviour, but that doesn't mean they don't have many varying beliefs on what the bible actually says.

Ah yes. You're right. And perhaps I should have been more specific. The examples you cite are all philological disagreements. Christians may also have those disagreements, but it would be on top of their theological beliefs. The beliefs that atheists hold about the Bible are all academic, no more important, in their eyes, to their eternal well being than their beliefs concerning the racial attitudes of Joseph Conrad.

I think we can agree that theological beliefs carry a different weight, especially in this arena, than such academic concerns. A Christian's beliefs about the Bible will affect his behavior in profound ways. An atheist's beliefs about any ancient text are unlikely to affect his life at all.

Agreed, I just wanted to point out that an atheist by no means speaks for all atheists when it comes to debate vs. a particular religion, but you're absolutely right that we would all answer the same way when it comes to our belief in a god or gods. I agree with everything else you've said. Unless an atheist debater asks a Christian to lay out exactly what that Christian believes, it's virtually impossible to have a debate without being accused of setting up straw men.

There's really only one type of atheist. There's no variation in the belief that you don't hold.

I couldn't disagree more on this part. Atheists have far less in common than members of any single religion. The only way we are alike is in not having a belief in a deity. Our ideas about other metaphysical things, objective morality, cosmology, epistemology, etc... are all over the place. This becomes extremely obvious in a theological (related) debate between types of atheists. Often I find myself on the side of most theists about some particular point opposite the more wishy-washy of secular humanists. The biggest differences between us though are all about definitions, epistemology, and just how far a definition of disbelief is still rationally justified.

Unlike members of religions, we have no reference book to potentially resolve these differences.

There are large differences, but theists also have such differences on top of their theological subscriptions. The point of my statement depends on the keyword "type." There's only one type of atheist. Theists categorize themselves according to 1. religion, 2. sect or denomination, 3. personal interpretation. And sometimes those personal interpretations cause schisms that further subdivide sects. Now, anyone from these various sects could disagree with their peers about some metaphysical things, moral questions, cosmology, epistemology, etc., but their held beliefs about theology are what differentiate types. Thence, the beliefs of some types cause them to hold a single view of morality, or a single view of cosmology, etc., but they can be left to speculate about the other questions. It's a rich Venn diagram.

But the key difference is reliance on faith. Faith compels you to accept a belief in spite of reason. There can be no meaningful argument there, only threats. But no matter how much two atheists disagree about an idea, it will always be an academic disagreement. For atheists, the ideas are up for grabs and one's allegiance to an idea is completely changeable and dependent on evidence and logic (as are the ideas of theists that remain unaffected by matters of faith).

This is probably how we should differentiate "beliefs" from "ideas." If we categorize theological mindsets by beliefs (rather than ideas), then religion lends itself to dividing into types and sub-types, and atheism is just the name for the null set.

For example, they say "Sp. K172 is a strain of Flavobacterium that evolved the capability of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture", instead of just "a bacterium evolved to digest nylon".

I have been asked so many times to be specific that I jump to it. Also, some of us are experts in certain fields and it's just how we talk.

I really don't understand what's wrong with being specific if it's right.

It's not about being specific. It's about being understood by a layman. If you say something they don't understand, they're probably not going to admit that, and you're going to find yourself debating two different things. If they ask for specific references then I provide them.

It seems like there's a desire on the part of many atheists on this board not to have an honest debate and informative discussion, but to find a way to make Christians into bad human beings, and the Bible into a hateful, misogynistic and evil book -- truth be damned.

It seems like there's a desire on the part of many atheists on this board not to have an honest debate and informative discussion, but to find a way to make Christians into bad human beings,

You're right; this often involves strawmen. It irritates me as much as it does you, I think.

and the Bible into a hateful, misogynistic and evil book -- truth be damned.

This does not involve strawmen, but differences in opinion. Where you may see a God who lovingly held the lions' mouths closed to save Daniel, I may see a God who leveled a city and ordered every living thing inside destroyed just because they were in the land promised to the Israelites. Both are true; it's just a matter of perspective, but not as a result of a strawman.

They're separate issues, yes. I did not intend to say that all instances of trying to show the Bible to be misogynistic or evil are strawmen attacks. I think they're ultimately wrong (of course I do), but I don't think they're necessarily strawmen.

When they try to houdini out of admitting that atheism is not a neutral outlook by pretending that agnosticism and atheism are two words for the same thing. Despite all evidence to the contrary, when talking to those who identify as either, much less the fact that the dictionary doesn't agree. (And information processing nullifies their desperate attempt to try to rephrase it into a binary anyways.) I honestly don't mind naturalists* at all. But when they identify primarily with being reactionary and anti-christian, and hold to this definition even when given other options you know you're dealing with a dubious individual at best.

This one, which if you know the historical context closely ties to the previous one. The bizarre declaration that nihilism is somehow by default true until impossibly (since they reject the obvious and correct answer) proven otherwise. This too seems to contradict their declaration that they are neutral as far as the unknown goes, since these type of atheists not only thinks this is matter of fact, but expects everyone else to too. What's more, these people ALSO still get bitter when people call them amoral, despite the fact that they literally admit to being so... since thinking morals don't exist is literally what that means. And they can and DO offhandedly use it in arguments to justify anything they want.

Which leads to the third issue. There's a lot of people who are arrogant and think being an atheist and also nihilist literally makes them an extremely enlightened individual, despite lacking any actual deep thoughts. And they try to use offhand referrals back to their terminology they think defines them as correct in place of actual depth.

Lord knows religious people are pretty bad too. But at least there's not a horde of them clogging up every forum that people try to have realistic debates on despite having no intent to actually critically review anything.

It's not some intentional trick. Some people just got taught different definitions of agnosticism and atheism than you. For a lot of people, agnosticism was about knowledge and atheism was about belief before they ever heard people use both terms to refer to belief or lack of belief.

For YOUR definition, atheism obviously isn't a default position. For the definition I was taught, it is. Weak atheism, specifically.

The kind of atheist you're talking about is also a nihilist in the sense of a person who takes joy in destroying things. I think atheism is true, but I share your negative assessment of many internet atheists. To seek the truth implies that one wants to find it.

I find it annoying when every debate in this thread inevitably veers off topic.

For example, in a thread about whether the Christian God is morally perfect, (which seems to be assuming for the sake of argument that he exists) an atheist might respond, "How can you rely on the bible as true?" Or "there isn't even a single shred of evidence that God exists"

I'm sure theists are just as guilty.

I also have a hard time debating people who Intentionally try to make my beliefs sound ridiculous. It may score you fedora points to say "evil blood god" and I can understand why people would say that, but it's not an argument and its disrespectful.

That's one of the things I find annoying about arguing with christians. They always take out the "I'm offended" card and expect it to turn the tides of the argument in their favor. I'm all about respecting people, but ideas are not worthy of respect. They should be analyzed, criticized, and ridiculed if they're in fact, ridiculous.

I'm all about respecting people, but ideas are not worthy of respect. They should be analyzed, criticized, and ridiculed if they're in fact, ridiculous.

I hear this line all the time and I just don't buy it. Who says that ideas are separate from individuals? I base my life upon these ideas. You can't disrespect them without disrespecting me.

And who says we need to ridicule these ideas? Dawkins? He means to give atheists a free pass to insult Christians out of the public arena and I think that public discourse suffers for these kinds of ideas.

Then again, I'm willing to respect an atheist for their ideas, but not willing to respect an atheist who thinks they should ridicule christians, so maybe I'm just as bad.

Who says that ideas are separate from individuals? I base my life upon these ideas. You can't disrespect them without disrespecting me.

Are you saying you respect every single idea and world view out there? Every. Single. One? Think of all the crazy, messed up, downright lunatic ideas out there. The fact that people base their life upon those ideas doesn't grant them immunity to criticism or ridicule, especially if those ideas are proven to cause threatening behavior in people. It's no secret that religion has fueled many more conflicts that it has resolved throughout history. By your logic, the ideologies of the Nazi and the KKK are to be respected, just because there are people who base/based their lives upon them.

And who says we need to ridicule these ideas? Dawkins? He means to give atheists a free pass to insult Christians out of the public arena and I think that public discourse suffers for these kinds of ideas.

Why does someone need to say it for me to think that way? Just because you like following people (I'm pretty sure it's Jesus, in your case) that doesn't mean I base my ideologies on what a few people say. By that token, who says we need to live christian lives? Jesus? He means to give christians a free pass to impose their religious ideals upon others. Historically, in a rather unpleasant manner. If I had to follow either Dawkins or Jesus, I would definitely follow Dawkins, simply because there won't be any wars or crusades fueled by his sayings.

Then again, I'm willing to respect an atheist for their ideas, but not willing to respect an atheist who thinks they should ridicule christians, so maybe I'm just as bad.

Are you saying you respect every single idea and world view out there? Every. Single. One? Think of all the crazy, messed up, downright lunatic ideas out there.

I didn't say that at all. I'm just saying you can't ridicule someones ideas they base their lives upon and then pretend you didn't actually ridicule that person.

Why does someone need to say it for me to think that way?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Why do you feel it is so necessary to ridicule religious ideas? If you feel it is necessary to make religion out to be some great joke, and people are connected to the ideas they subscribe to as I have suggested, then you are not at all "about respecting people" as you suggested.

We should afford respect towards people if we are going to have a debate with them.

I don't mean that you must respect everyone, I just think it is duplicitous to claim to respect people and then make snarky comments like, "not so christian after all, are we?"

I didn't say that at all. I'm just saying you can't ridicule someones ideas they base their lives upon and then pretend you didn't actually ridicule that person.

Okay, whatever, I think those ideas are ridiculous, therefore I'm disrespecting you. Is there something about being christian that makes people overly sensitive? You all seem to whine a lot about "feeling disrespected" and make such a whole deal out of it.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Why do you feel it is so necessary to ridicule religious ideas? If you feel it is necessary to make religion out to be some great joke, and people are connected to the ideas they subscribe to as I have suggested, then you are not at all "about respecting people" as you suggested.

Because, as I've said, those ideas are ridiculous. Can't define them any other way. The fact that people connect to those ideas does not grant said ideas any special privileges. So what if you think I'm disrespectful here on Reddit? What's your point? That I'm disrespectful? So what?

I don't mean that you must respect everyone

That's not what Jesus would want you to do. You're doing something wrong, definitely not following his teachings. Not so christian after all, are we?

I didn't say that at all. I'm just saying you can't ridicule someones ideas they base their lives upon and then pretend you didn't actually ridicule that person.

Smart people can believe stupid things. If you can't separate ridicule of a person's beliefs from ridicule of the person, that is their beliefs and their self are so intertwined as to be inseparable, that's not my problem. That's someone too caught up in their own belief system.

I'm a firm believer in modern medical science. You can ridicule it all you want, I don't care.

In other words, if you can't handle the ridicule, why do you hold those beliefs? It better be a damned good reason.

I'm a secularist and a Atheist, when people insult my secularism and Atheism I don't go into a fit over it, because they are not insulting me, they are insulting my beliefs, which I realize are SEPARATE thing from me entirely.

If you are insulted and offended by someone insulting your beliefs, TOO DANG BAD. Get over it. The fact that you can't separate mentally your belief with yourself is YOUR problem, not the person you are debating with.

PEOPLE deserve respect and have rights, ideas DO NOT and never will.

And if you play the offended card with me, I will simply respond with "I'm still waiting to hear your point? Your offendedness is irrelevant to the truth of my claim."

And if all Christians have this problem, then it's still THEIR problem, they need to get over it if they want to act like grown ups in a debate theater.

No I' saying I'm fine with BOTH sides challenging and ridiculing the beliefs of the other. Insult my belief all you want, it won't bother me because I recognize my belief is NOT me. But back it up with evidence, and the same applies to me, and other Atheists, they should scathingly attack stupid beliefs, and back up those attacks with evidence showing just how stupid they are.

Of course if either side doesn't back up their claims with evidence they should expect and demand to be flayed alive, philosphically speaking

Because we care about the premises of a argument BEFORE the argument itself. We don't just assume things and go along with the argument. Before you ever get to "the christian god is morally perfect" you need to prove he exists in the first place, THAT'S a premise. and in debates premises matter more than the argument itself. Because if you build a argument on false premises your entire argument is flawed and wrong.

Think about such discussions as thought experiments. It's about pondering over the consequences of some assumption. When the topic of discussion is "what if X ...", it's offtopic to debate in depth whether X is really true. We're not discussing whether X is an acceptable premise, but consequences of X.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." (attributed to Aristotle)

oh that's fine, if someone starts a debate, "Let's assume that such is such is true, what are the consequences to daily life" that's perfectly fine, I have no problem with thought experiments, they are useful in science as well as philosophy.

I also have a hard time debating people who Intentionally try to make my beliefs sound ridiculous. It may score you fedora points to say "evil blood god" and I can understand why people would say that, but it's not an argument and its disrespectful.

Agnostic does not necessarily just mean not knowing what you believe. To the best of my knowledge, it is the position that it is impossible to have knowledge of the subject at hand. I suppose I'm just arguing semantics here, though.

In general terms, "atheist" is someone who's come to the conclusion that there probably is no god.

An "agnostic" is someone who doesn't really believe in god, but doesn't firmly rule it out either. That's closer to "undecided" than anything, basically admitting that there's a lot of uncertainty. Some agnostics are actually atheists who are just saying they cannot rule out the possibility there is a god, disregarding most atheists admit there is still a chance there is a god and they're wrong.

But it is a hypothesis. All religions are hypotheses. They posit a truth claim about the universe, the fundamental nature of reality. then they make absolutely no overtures to prove those claims, which is why all religions stay hypotheses and never graduate to Theories.

For example claiming that slavery in the old testament was no big deal, and is different from what slavery was for the USA when it's bald faced nonsense.

You held the ear of your slave up to a door and pounded a wooden nail through it to show your ownership of them, unless they were a jew you could keep them indefinitely and pass them as property to your offspring, you could BEAT THEM to death as long as they didn't die within 2 days, and even if they were fellow jews if you tricked them into marrying and they want to stay with their wife at the end of the 7 years Jews have to serve, they can take the Jew PERMANENTLY as a slave.

It's disgusting on every level but I've heard TONS of christians defend it with zeal because they were either ignorant of what the passage says, or just bald faced lying to defend a utterly barbaric custom made by their 'loving' God

Also, an impossibly high standard of evidence . . . . Much higher than in other areas which they accept.

It's all about the nature of the claim.

If you told me that you had a ham sandwich for lunch, I'd believe you based on your say-so.

If you told me that you have caviar and foie gras for lunch, I'd probably ask what the occasion was, and if you gave no satisfactory explanation, I probably wouldn't believe you.

If you told me that you flew to England and had lunch with the queen, I'd expect some sort of hard evidence. You'd need a damn good explanation, and maybe a photo of you at Buckingham palace for good measure.

If you told me that you had lunch at Alpha Centauri with some aliens, and then they flew you back to earth in their spaceship, I'd want to meet these aliens and see the ship myself. I'd also want independent witnesses to help ensure that this isn't some sort of trickery, and that I'm not hallucinating.

As you can see, the more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence I would need. Now where do you suppose "I know exactly how the universe was created, regularly speak to its creator (who loves me like a child), and know what happens to people after they die" falls on that scale?

Can you please provide an example of an impossibly high standard of evidence we ask for when it comes to the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, loving entity that wants to have a relationship with me?

What evidence is too much when it comes to eternal suffering or salvation?

Your notion amuses me considerably. If person A wants a relationship with person B would we blame person B for not knowing person A wanted a relationship with them if person A never told them? Or, to make matters more confusing, if person A wrote person B a thousand different letters, all with different handwriting and all in a different style trying to convince person B to have a relationship with someone but never explicitly stating person A?

What do you consider an acceptable level of evidence? Must it be empiracally verifiable, personally reproducable?

Most things yes but it depends on the claim. If you tell me your favorite color is green I'm going to take your word for it because it's not really that mind blowing of a revelation. But if you tell me your invisible best friend is going to send me to hell when I die because I don't love him like you do I'm going to be a bit more skeptical.

Empirical evidence of someone that wants to have a relationship with me?

But what I would accept as evidence doesn't matter. Your God, being the omniscient and omnipotent entity that you claim him to be, knows exactly what kind of evidence it would take to convince me of his existence without interfering with my freewill, and he hasn't done it.

I'm fairly certain the term was invented (and defined) by the religious as a way to control the discourse. But yours is a great question.

Science is just the systematic process of finding out what's true about the world. Anything and everything that is can be described and studied by science. If gods are real, then they too fall under the rubric of science.

'Anything and everything that is can be described and studied by science'

Scientism, case in point. Science may explain what the process of drowning someone is, but it cannot explain why the act is wrong. How do you scientifically describe the love of one man giving up his life for another? Trying to empirically answer nonscientific questions is foolhardy.

Science may explain what the process of drowning someone is, but it cannot explain why the act is wrong. How do you scientifically describe the love of one man giving up his life for another?

Moral behavior, even altruism, is beneficial--not always to the individual--to the genes that that individual shares with others. It's why we feel, first and foremost, a duty to ourselves and our families, then to our groups, then to our neighboring groups, etc. etc. We feel more responsible to those with genes that we probably have in common. Self-sacrifice is unselfish from the point of view of the individual making the decision, but it is selfish from the gene's point of view. Those genes survive best which help preserve themselves, even if that be in the body of other organisms. This is (a highly simplified version of) the thesis of Dawkins's The Selfish Gene. It's a beautiful argument for how evolution can explain morality and what appears to be group selection. You should read it.

Moral behavior, even altruism, is beneficial--not always to the individual--to the genes that that individual shares with others. It's why we feel, first and foremost, a duty to ourselves and our families, then to our groups, then to our neighboring groups, etc. etc. We feel more responsible to those with genes that we probably have in common. Self-sacrifice is unselfish from the point of view of the individual making the decision, but it is selfish from the gene's point of view. Those genes survive best which help preserve themselves, even if that be in the body of other organisms. This is (a highly simplified version of) the thesis of Dawkins's The Selfish Gene. It's a beautiful argument for how evolution can explain morality and what appears to be group selection. You should read it.

So you've given an account of why moral behaviour is beneficial to our genes, and thus why we feel how we do about it. Where's the account of why we should do it? What reason do I have for acting so as to benefit my genes? That moral behaviour is adaptive is not a reason to do it, as there are other adaptive traits that we have (such as our tendency to treat those we see as 'outsiders' unkindly) which we don't have reason to act on.

Maybe this is what you're saying, but the problem with this sort of explanation is that it doesn't even purport to give is an explanation of moral distinctions, but only of why some people have certain feelings or inclinations. So that if someone acts immorally, this supposed explanation simply doesn't leave us with anything at all to say to them that would condemn what they've done. The only thing it leaves us to say about them is that apparently they don't have the feelings or inclinations that some of us have--but there's no reason given by this explanation to suggest that there'd be anything wrong with that. So this supposed explanation simply doesn't even purport to explain morality.

To his credit (?), Dawkins recognizes this. Hence his infamous remark about there being nothing objectively wrong with rape. But this renders his position rather obfuscatory, since he does tell people that biology explains morality, even though he concedes to nosy journalists and philosophers in smaller venues that he doesn't mean. Presumably it would be preferable, in that it would be less obfuscatory, for people in this position to state their view plainly, and say that what they maintain is that science can't explain morality, but that they don't regard this as problematic, so far as the explanatory scope of science goes, because they deny that there is any such thing as moral distinctions that require explaining.

Maybe this is what you're saying, but the problem with this sort of explanation is that it doesn't even purport to give is an explanation of moral distinctions, but only of why some people have certain feelings or inclinations. So that if someone acts immorally, this supposed explanation simply doesn't leave us with anything at all to say to them that would condemn what they've done. The only thing it leaves us to say about them is that apparently they don't have the feelings or inclinations that some of us have--but there's no reason given by this explanation to suggest that there'd be anything wrong with that. So this supposed explanation simply doesn't even purport to explain morality.

Exactly! However for a time I'm afraid to admit that I found the account convincing, and since having come to my senses I try to convince others that it doesn't work. Thought I think I might just be better off recommending The Expanding Circle to people who like the theory; Singer is much more interesting than I am.

Where's the account of why we should do it? What reason do I have for acting so as to benefit my genes?

Because you are the product of those genes, and those genes have survived only because they were good at making sure the organisms they traveled in preserved them by reproducing and by protecting other organisms likely to have copies of the same genes.

...there are other adaptive traits that we have (such as our tendency to treat those we see as 'outsiders' unkindly) which we don't have reason to act on.

I'm not sure quite what you mean, but I think I get the gist. The thing is, we as individuals are in competition with animals of other species, but also with others of our own species. Outsiders are less likely to share our genes, so both parties will feel less moral duty to each other than to their families. If resources are scarce enough, this means that violence toward outsiders could benefit your genes. If resources are plentiful, then the relatively smaller amount of genes that the outsiders share with you outweighs the need to get more resources and the risk of being hurt. Put simply: your morals tend to get more flexible when you and your family are starving. Once again, however, this is a gross simplification. The individual situations for different organisms require their own investigations, because there are a lot of other factors to consider.

I'm not going to actually get into a big debate like the one I see has started here (unless you really want to lol) but I just want to ask, what equivalent beliefs do you think we hold that we have less evidence for than your or any god?

Evidence required is based on how extraordinary the claim is, and what the consequences of holding the wrong belief are. God rings both bells EXTREMELY loudly, so the requirement of evidence IS ridiculously high - and rightfully so.